After a series of gruesome events in the past weeks in Syria, Russia and Sweden, media (including social media) turned their attention in reporting and raising awareness about the situations. One thing that media missed or neglected to report was the discriminatory language at the European Parliament. Maria Bizzotto and Angelo Ciocca from Lega Nord discriminated Roma at the debate session on behalf of the International Roma Day. Although freedom of speech is one of the basic principles of democracy and should be respected, MEPs should not be at liberty to use discriminatory language. All citizens and constituencies should be equally respected. When Korwin-Mikke discriminated against women for being less intelligent and weaker than men, president Tajani reacted to these sexist statements. Will Tajani react on the discriminatory language by the Parliament representatives or will he neglect the situation due to lack of media coverage?

Following an organized set of events in Brussels from 23rd to 30th March called Roma week, the European Parliament had a debate session on April 6, in honor of International Roma Day. Apart from the busy agenda, Roma squeezed in early for a briefing about the situation in Europe. The plenary was moderated by one of the vice-presidents of the European Parliament, Evelyne Gebhardt. The participation on the debate was covered by all of the political groups in the Parliament.

The session started with assessment of the situation of Roma, highlighting the continuation of the EU Roma Framework 2020 and the most alarming issues which included a focus on employment, education, housing and antigypsyism. All of the representatives had encouraging and committing speeches showing support and readiness to advance the situation of Roma in Europe without any specific or targeted actions. However, Soraya Post, a member from the S&D of Romani origin, had recommendations urging specific Commissioners from different DGs to establish a team for non-discriminatory funds and programs due to the failure in inclusion of Roma in Europe. She also added that the consultation with Roma representatives and NGOs is crucial in implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the projects. She also stressed the importance of recognizing August 2 at the national level for commemorating Roma victims in the Holocaust.

After a series of positive accounts, the first to throw down the gauntlet was the representative from the EFDD. Tim Aker, from the UKIP, in 2 minutes blatantly attacked the EU for supporting the migration of Roma to the UK which he claims brought nothing but poverty to the country. Counter arguments underlined that Roma are a contributing part of European societies and that the EP should remain a platform to discuss their issues. Tim Aker blamed the translation of his arguments claiming that he represents concerned British citizens and expressed his gratitude for Brexit.

For a bigger chaos, Maria Bizzotto from the ENF group caught the spotlight of the debate. Firstly she paid respect to victims of the Second World War and then accused the EU for wasting millions of euros to integrate Roma. She vociferously claimed that Roma do not want to integrate and the money should be spent on as she puts it “our citizens, our unemployed people, our poor families”. In addition, she used Italy as an example to generalize and vilify Roma causing additional problems to Italian citizens. In the end, denying any racism on her part, she denounced the importance of the day and claimed that this should be a day to commemorate other citizens who suffer from problems caused by Roma. This speech provoked an avalanche of reactions from other representatives. All of the MEPs targeted the country and the party’s commitment and role to support Roma. Avoiding a direct response to the questions, she claimed in Italy funds for Roma inclusion do not work. She also claimed that there are both legal and illegal Roma children undernourished and badly dressed, while their parents allegedly drive expensive cars that according to her opinion are bought with EU funds. She also added that Roma children do not want pursue education attacking the parents that they force their children to beg and steal as reported on the newspapers.

In the end, Angelo Ciocca from the same political party, used the same discourse. He pointed out that the important issues are left out and instead the representatives are debating about fake victims. He also emphasized that in Italy every 2 minutes there is a burglary case questioning how Roma earn money and own expensive cars. Duly noted by the moderator, there was no room for additional counter arguments to Ciocca’s speech. However, the debate continued with representatives showing support for inclusion initiatives for Roma.

So are we yet again in a situation where we remain oblivious to a discourse that hinders prosperity? In times of trending nationalistic sentiments and far-right parties blooming at national level, the European Parliament has to sustain the credibility of a democratic institution respecting the core values and principles of the Union. After the debate, when Korwin-Mikke discriminated women at the EP, it was reported that Korwin-Mikke was sanctioned. Apart from the suspension and the loss of his wages, he was banned from representing the Parliament and parliamentary bodies for a year. This move was saluted by MEPs, citizens and institutions. People were once again hopeful as a result of European institutions finally acting instead of just kindly recommending. Consequently, Maria Bizzotto and Angelo Ciocca are the next suspects to be suspended. But will the Parliament use the same remedies to cure this sick narrative or not? Will this be forgotten because the debate did not go viral enough on social media to create pressure on the institution? Better yet, will the European Parliament show authority or will it use double standards and let this pass? On a positive note, there is an online petition condemning the speech. While Soraya Post urged the vice-president to address the case to the bureau to sanction the discriminatory claims from the representatives of the ENF.

Policy brief on Migration of Roma in EU: The case of Romani asylum seekers from Western Balkans. This policy brief provides data and policy recommendations aimed to confirm that temporary and/or permanent systems of reintegration for Roma asylum seekers in the Western Balkans 5 states (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia).

]]>amit.skenderi@gmail.com (Romalitico)RomaliticoWed, 01 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0000Why should we support the European Roma Institutehttp://romalitico.org/new/index.php/content/romalitico/item/53-european-roma-institute
http://romalitico.org/new/index.php/content/romalitico/item/53-european-roma-institute

Throughout the centuries, different types of institutional policies towards Roma impede their development and emancipation. Variety of policies were ranged from forbidding the Roma language to persecutions as well as mass evictions and revival of anti-Roma racism in the latest of our time. All these practices and policies primarily had an ultimate aim to extinguish the Roma cultures or fix them in accordance to the needs of the majoritarian societies. In the last three decades, the existing mainstream institutions endorsed a model of assimilation for integrating the minorities through the system of education and promotion of the state culture as a convergence between minorities and the majority.

However, Roma survived and during the years developed a “strategy of survival” often through hiding or denial of their identity. Up until a recent period, Roma have been defined by non-Roma from different perspectives. As the Romani scholar Ian Hancock (2002) once said that when a community loses a sense of its own history, when you cannot tell people where you came from, it's open season for outsiders to construct and define your identity. Or in the case of Roma as Mihai Surdu claims “Roma have been subjected to a variety of scientific practices such as counting, classifying, demographic predictions, mapping, photographing, and DNA profiling”[1] he also adds that “all these practices are part and parcel of a trained vision that itself needs to be observed.”[2] In this regard, we are witnessing a undignified representation of Roma cultural values in academic research which in the last decade managed to (re)construct from a distorted interpretations, being far from the Roma reality, yet, strong enough to “define” who Roma are, what Romani identity is.

As Herbert J. Gans (1995) explains, such judgments are created by not knowing the people directly, but rather knowing them often indirectly including the representatives from institutions, media, and majority that are an important factor in creating judgment toward groups. Also, he notes that judgments are grounded on imagined knowledge that might come from stories and ideas generated from the values and prejudices of the judges, as well as the position in the society of the judge. In the case of Roma, we are witnesses that very often, the representatives of institutions, media, and the mainstream officials are those who judge the Roma based on the prejudices and imagined misperceptions. For example Manuel Valls, the Prime Minister of France and Minister of the Internal Affairs said “The majority [of Roma] should be delivered back to the border. We are not here to welcome these people. I'd remind you of [former Socialist Premier] Michel Rocard's statement: ‘It's not France's job to deal with the misery of the whole world’”[3]. Still, there are many examples from representatives of institutions, scholars, and journalist that demonize and undervalue the Roma identity.

However, Roma cultural capital endured throughout the years, transferring values from one to another generation. Although the Roma culture should be part of the European family of cultures and niche to build upon it for successful integration, frequently it is wrongly considered by the mainstream as an obstacle. When nation states built institutions for preserving their own culture, Roma “had to live torn between the pariah status and the embrace of the dominant culture” (Hancock 1988). In addition, nation-states often neglect the contribution of Roma for establishment of their states, culture, and values.

Therefore, Roma are in a desperate need to establish an institution that will promote and preserve the language, history, arts, and culture. This would be a crucial tool to cope with the anti-Roma discourse, and nurture positive self-esteem to the future generations of Roma. This is why institutions matter, not only because they shape the behavior, beliefs and opportunities of individuals and groups, but also affect the policies and challenge the power in the society. As such, establishing the European Roma Institute is more than necessary in a period when right wing parties gain more power and discrimination towards Roma seems ‘normal’ for the ordinary citizens. Therefore, it is important to establish an institution that would bring closer the Roma cultural values to the European system of values and cultures.

Up until today, many Roma and pro-Roma allies fought against injustice, discrimination, social exclusion, and poverty. We know that there are different types of organizations dealing with all these issues, but yet there is a need to advance the standards and effects of Roma self-organization. The insufficient involvement in policy making processes legitimately draws the path for setting Roma focused institution such as ERI. Having a Roma institution as ERI not only gets us closer to decision-making processes, but also makes us responsible and accountable social actors.

Having ERI as an institution lead by Roma leadership will promote the “Romani arts, culture, history, talent and their cultural and intellectual contributions to society” (Concept paper, European Roma Institute 2015) and contribute to overcome Romanophobia and familiarize Europeans with the Roma identity. We see ERI as an initiative driven from previous initiatives and aspirations for inclusion of Roma into mainstream societies. The new value is that the idea of establishing the institute strives to earn a consensual supports by Roma themselves and the state institutions across Europe. In addition, the novelty of this idea is the emphasis of the leadership and responsibility of current, and next Roma generations vis-à-vis the longstanding inclusion process of Roma in Europe. ERI would be a new structure from Roma scholars, activists, artists, professors and others, that contribute to set shared vision and professional articulation in promoting and advancing the uniqueness and diversity of Roma cultural, social and political identity. This makes ERI a long-term sustainable initiative.

Furthermore, the conclusion of the panel discussion Romani Voice in Academia: The representation and contribution of Roma in Budapest boldly demonstrated that there is an urgent need for Roma scholars to advance their visibility and their voice in the academic circles. It was noted that the current representation of Roma scholars should cooperate with universities to facilitate the access and contribution of Roma to academic research and knowledge making. In addition, as Rostas, one of the panelist noted that it is not simply a matter of having more Roma in academia that will improve the discourse but an acceptance and recognition of Roma as true academicians. It is time, Roma to take a critical “look at the lookers”[4] and time to challenge incorrect claims that define Roma as fundamentally different to everyone else.

Team Romalitico fully supports and stands for the ERI initiative, committed to contribute to its mission with our capacities and vision for prosperity and inclusion of Roma in all societal spheres. We invite CoE member states, universities, cultural and research institutions to join us in support of ERI for the sake of making our societies more aware for the rich Roma heritage.

Hancock, Ian. 2002. We are the Romani people. University Of Hertfordshire Press

Gans, Herbert J. 1995. The war against the poor: The underclass and antipoverty policy. Basic Books

According to different sources of literature, there is an ongoing debate whether Roma during the Second World War were part of the Holocaust notion or “just another” trauma, like many other, past and present events. Nevertheless, the “Fotgotten” Holocaust of Roma (Samudaripen) is part of the Roma history which must not be in any case forgotten.

The forgotten Holocaust represents an elimination of about 220,000 Roma during Nazi period. It is difficult to show the actual number of victims due to the long denied chapter of the Holocaust, however, predictions are between 250.000 to 500.000 Roma. The fate of the Roma is similar to that of the Jews. German Nazis have easily persuaded the rest of the world by "proving" that the Roma nation is racially inferior to others by using the existing social prejudice against Roma. In such context, many Roma from the vicinity of Poland, Russia, Germany Hungary and other countries were deported to a concentration camp in Auschwitz – Birkenau where the Roma concentration camps were established. The difference with the Jewish camps was that Roma families were not divided; entire families with their children were kept together in those camps. Furthermore, it is discussed that the responsible person for the Roma camp was Doctor Josef Mengele who performed different experiments on the Roma population, especially on Roma children. Different testimonies of many children show that he behaved like a father, acting generously, tempting them with chocolates to his office where he performed all pH experiments, testing their endurance with a quiet death. Many Roma in this period, despite such persecution die of hunger, exhaustion and diseases (typhoid) etc.

The night passing 2nd of August to 3rd, 1944, the Roma camp is "wiped out." Special German SS troops bait Roma families in the gas chambers and take away their lives. In the book of Jitzak Arad – a survivor named Jacob Viernik describes the arrival of a large group of Roma in the camp Treblinka in the summer of 1943.

"One day, while working beside a gate, I noticed how the Germans and Ukrainians make special preparations ... at the same time the gate opened and more than 1,000 Roma came inside the camp. About 200 were men the rest were women and children.... All Roma were taken to the gas chambers and then burned…”

Today, after 73 years of this genocide there are still on-going discussions whether this really happened or not. Many of us have never heard about the Roma Holocaust. The history in our textbooks, encyclopedias emphasize the details of world wars, we celebrate the winners but forget the victims who truly deserve our respect and recognition.

In 2012, on the initiative of a Roma activist Nicolae Gheorghe, Resolution for recognizing the Roma Holocaust was drafted. Recognizing August 2 as an international day of the Roma victims during the Second World War. Some countries like Poland mark this day on a national level, many countries such as Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania organize different kind of events in respect of the victims. Nevertheless, the question whether the Roma politicians in the Republic of Macedonia will try to ask for an official recognition as well, it remains yet to be heard. Roma activists and the Roma population in Macedonia honor our Roma brothers / sisters who died during the Second World War.

In memory and eternal glory,

Team Romalitico

]]>amit.skenderi@gmail.com (Romalitico)RomaliticoTue, 09 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0000Survey on public opinion of Roma for the Parliamentary elections in 2014http://romalitico.org/new/index.php/content/romalitico/item/34-survey
http://romalitico.org/new/index.php/content/romalitico/item/34-survey

This study presents the results of the public opinion survey, conducted by Romalitico. The research consists of an online survey with questions related to the parliamentary elections and the trust in the Roma political parties. The survey was conveyed during the period from November 14th to April 18th, 2014, on a sample of 350 people.

Internet (online) survey is one of the newest and most modern research tools for measuring the public opinion. These surveys provide a space for measuring the general public opinion in various topics, but often in areas such as health, economy and politics in order to obtain different descriptive and inferential statistics.

Romalitico for the first-time conducts an online survey to test the public opinion of Roma in Macedonia about the Roma political parties and their work. The primary goal of this survey is to capture the opinion of the Roma middle class because we believe that this group is driving the changes in society and is less vulnerable to electoral manipulation. The initial assumption, based on previous research (Ncube, 2011); (Dunlap, 2008), was that the population that has access to the Internet, in fact, represented the so-called Roma middle class.

Romalitico with this research brought a new dimension to the political situation of the Roma electorate, which is of common importance to the public and Roma political parties. In addition, this survey has a goal to produce a public debate about the focus on the parties and their expectations in the next parliamentary elections.

Methodology

Regarding the methodology, Romalitico projected a target population of 500 people over 18 years (due to the right to vote), users of the social network Facebook. During the selection of the population, Romalitico uses the Facebook group - Young Roma Lawyers that consists of active Roma users that regularly debate about policies in Macedonia. From the target population, a random sample of 350 people was selected, taking into account the gender equality. The random selection of respondents was prepared in Microsoft Excel where each member of the database is granted with the appropriate probability (function of Excel random), where the first 350 people with the highest probability were chosen. Taking into account of the limitation of the internet surveys, Romalitico used the services of a Google Form with a single link for the randomized sample. Given the fact that this kind of research is presented for the first time for the Roma electorate, Romalitiko also faces some limitation in the response and distribution of the survey.

From the total sample of 350 people, only 114 respond the survey. The data are with a confidence interval of 95% with a margin of error of 2.68% +/-. The moderately low response rate of 32% is due to the fact that these type of polls are implemented for the first time on a sample of Roma population; people have an aversion to respond to political issues; and some people think that is violated their anonymity. Given the random sample and the above mentions limitation, the response is relatively good and generates conclusions based on a small number of respondents of the total target group. However this kind of research has been recently introduced and may bring new measures for various topics about the Roma community in Macedonia.

This survey for the first time included specific questions about the Roma political parties and their assessment/rating. The survey contains 3 parts, along with the demographic questions. The survey was anonymous and the analysis of these data was carried out in a transparent manner.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the respondents

The table above presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents. In the demographic part, questions about gender, level of education and age were included. This information were very useful for obtaining the essential statistics in determining the factors that influence or are important for the statistical conclusions. From the table it can be seen, that 70% of respondents are males versus 30% female and most of the respondents (around 99%) are with higher and secondary education. By the age groups, respondents ranged mostly in the category of 18 -29 years (about 60%). The demographic characteristics of the respondents indicate that many of the young people with secondary and higher education show interest in the political process in Macedonia.

The second part includes questions about respondents' interest in politics; confidence in the level of democracy and state institutions; and their views on the appraisal of their vote and the impact on the general political processes. The purpose of these questions is to generate responses about the general knowledge and assessment of the political system of the Republic of Macedonia. These questions also show the level of involvement and engagement of the respondents in the political processes.

The third part of this survey included specific questions about the Roma political parties and their previous activities. In this survey, respondents had the opportunity to assess the work of several Roma political parties on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 - the lowest; 5 – the highest rank), and to evaluate the Roma leaders. This research also examined the impact of various factors that affect the decision to vote and the reason for the low voting turnout in the election. The last question of this survey includes the question of choice of political party for the upcoming parliamentary elections. The purpose of this set of the questions was to examine and evaluate the opinion about the Roma parties, their activities and the trust level. . These issues generate crucial part of this analysis.

Results

The first question of the research refers to the participant’s interest about politics (listed options: Not at all interested, Not very interested, somewhat interested, and very interested). Based on the responses, it can be seen that 48% of the respondents are somewhat interested in politics, while 30% of the respondents are very much interested in politics. For the same question 17% of the respondents stated that they are not very interested in politics, while 5% said that they have no interest at all. According to these results gained from 114 Roma respondents, can be concluded that Roma have some interest in politics, 48%, and only 5% have no interest at all. The following figure visually projects the statistical results.

Figure 1: Generally speaking, how interested are you in politics?

The second question examine how satisfied Roma are with the level of democracy? (Listed options: I do not know, dissatisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, satisfied, and very satisfied). The results of this question indicates that there is partial satisfaction in the democracy of the Republic of Macedonia, 47%, while 26% stated neither satisfied nor dissatisfied in the democracy of the country, and 18% dissatisfied. According to the responses, 3% responded that they do not know about the level of democracy, and only 6% responded with full trust to the level of democracy in the country. In addition, it can be concluded that, most of the respondents have partial confidence in the level of democracy in the country.

Figure 2: How satisfied are you with the level of democracy?

The third question explore how much Roma have a trust in the state institutions, such as: Parliament, President, Police, Media, and Judiciary. (Listed options: from a scale from 1 to 5; 1 - trust the least and 5- trust the most). According to the responses of 114 interviews, it can be seen that from the scale (1 to 5) the respondents mostly responded with 3, or a moderate trust in the parliament, while few of the interviews responded with 5, which means they mostly trust to the parliament as an institution. For the president as an institution, most of the interviews responded with 1, which means the least trust is in the president, while few of them responded with 5, or the most trust in the president as an institution. The third institution is the police, where the largest part of the interviews responded with 1 or the least trust in the police, while few respondents responded with 5 or the most trust in the police as an institution. For the same question on trust for the media largest part of the interviews responded with 1 or the least trust in the media, while few respondents responded with 5 or the most trust in the media. The last institution is the trust in the judiciary, for which most of the respondents voted with 1 or the least trust in the judiciary, while few of the respondents voted with 5 or the most trust in the judiciary as an institution. Based on the results gained from 114 Roma interviews, it can be concluded that Roma except the partial trust in the parliament, in the other institutions (president, police, media, and judiciary) have the least trust. The following graph visually projects the statistical results.

Figure 3: How much trust do you have in the following institutions?

The fourth question of the survey was designed to grasp whether Roma vote in the last parliamentary elections? (Listed options: Yes and No). According to the responses of the interviews it can be seen that larger part of the respondents voted in the last parliamentary elections, 74%, while 26% responded that they did not vote. Based on these results gained from 114 Roma interviews, it can be concluded that Roma use their civil right for voting. The following graph visually illustrates the statistical results.

Figure 4: Did you vote in the last parliamentary elections?

The fifth question of the research is: Do you believe that your vote can make a change in the election of the next president/ prime minister in the country ?(Listed options: Yes, No and I do not know). The results of this question indicate that respondents can make a change in choosing the next President or Prime Minister with 53%, while 31% believe they cannot make a change in choosing them. For the same question 17% answered they do not know whether can make a change in electing the President or Prime Minister in the state. From these results it can be concluded that Roma can make a change in choosing the next President or Prime Minister in the state. The following graph showing the results visually.

Graph 5: Do you believe that your vote can make a change in the election of the next president/ prime minister in the country?

The sixth question of the research is: How much your vote can affect the work of the Government on Roma issues? (Listed options: I do not know, Not at all, Little, Somewhat, Very much) According to the results of this question can be seen that most of respondents answered that very much i.e. somewhat that their voice can affect the work of the government in terms of Roma issues with 32% while 20% answered that their voice can have a little influence the work of the government on Roma issues. The following graph showing the results visually.

Figure 6: How much your vote can affect the work of the Government on Roma issues?

The seventh question of the research is: Are you a member of a political party? (Listedoptions: Yes and No). The results of this question indicate that 54% of respondents are part of some political party, while 46% of respondents answered that they are not part of political party. According the answers of the respondents can be concluded that most of respondents in this survey are politically oriented i.e. are part political party. The following graph showing the results visually.

Figure 7: Are you a member of a political party?

The eighth question of the research is: How would you rate the work of the Roma political parties? (Listed parties: SRM, PIR, PCER, DPR, DSR) * Party OPE is taken into consideration along with DSR ie ODSR (Listed options: a scale from 1 to 5, 1 is minimum, 2 is little, 3 is partially, 4 is a lot and 5 is the most). According to the results of this question from the average of respondents it can be concluded that most valued party among Roma is SRM with 3.0 points, after SRM most valued party is PCER with average of 1.9 points, similar result have and DSR with 1.8 points, after follows PIR with 1.7 points and the last valued party according the received answers is DPR with 1.5 points. The following graph showing the results visually.

Figure 8: How would you rate the work of the Roma political parties?

The ninth question of the research is: How much trust you have in the following leaders? (Listed politicians: Amdi Bajram, Saban Saliu, Nezdet Mustafa, Samka Ibraimoski, and Bajram Berat)(Listed options: a scale from 1 to 5, 1 is minimum, 2 is little, 3 is partially, 4 is a lot and 5 is the most) According to the results of this question from the average of respondents it can be concluded that most confidence enjoy Amdi Bajram with 2.83 points, next most trusted politician is Samka Ibraimoski with 1.95 points, after Samka Ibraimoski follow Shaban Saliu with 1.70 points, similarly points of trust enjoy and Bajram Berat with 1.63 points and less trust enjoy Nezdet Mustafa with 1.43 points. The following graph showing the results visually.

Figure 9: How much trust you have in the following leaders?

The tenth question of the research is: In which of the following areas the Roma political party should focus more? (Listed domains: Health, Housing, Education, Employment, Infrastructure, Judicial System and Culture)(Listed options: a scale from 1 to 5, 1 is minimum, 2 is little, 3 is partially, 4 is a lot and 5 is the most) According to the results of this question it can be concluded that the average of votes from the respondents are concentrated in all areas mentioned above. Health, housing, education, employment, infrastructure, judicial system and culture are areas in which the parties should direct their actions. Most of the answers are targeted towards acting in employment follows with similar difference housing and education. As well the domains of health and infrastructure seem to be important according the respondents where political parties should direct their activities while culture and legislation are considered less important domains on which political parties should focus their activities. The following graph showing the results visually.

Figure 10: In which of the following areas the Roma political party should focus more?

The Eleventh question (a) of the research is from closed type: All Roma political parties are the same, there is no difference between them. (Listed options: I completely agree ,I agree, I do not agree, Somewhat agree). The results of this question indicate that 43 respondents completely agree with the statement, 39 of the respondents agree with the statement, 14 of the respondents somewhat agree with this statement and 18 respondents said they do not agree with this statement. According to the answers can be concluded that the Roma have the same perception for the Roma political parties while only 18 of the respondents said there is a difference between Roma parties. The following graph showing the results visually.

Figure 11a: All Roma political parties are the same, there is no difference between them.

The eleventh question (b) from the research is from closed type: The political parties are the best way to represent the interests of Roma (Offered options, I do not agree, somewhat agree, agree and completely agree). The results indicate that 37 respondents agree with the statement, while 35 of the respondents do not agree, for the options somewhat agree and completely disagree, the number of the respondents was the same, 21 respondents. It can be concluded that Roma agree that the political parties are the best way to represent the interest of Roma, however, there is still little difference in the option do not agree which demonstrate that many of the respondents think that the Roma political parties are not the only representatives. The following graph visually illustrates the statistical results of this research.

Figure 11b: The political parties are the best way to represent the interests of Roma.

The Twelfth research question is: What most affects when choosing a political party? (Offered options: A political party / plan, its past results, The media, Financial compensation, Election Campaign and leader / member of a particular political party). According to the results of this question it can be seen that 47 respondents believe that the most recent results effect on their choice, second, 33 participants have named the political program / ​​plan, leader or member of a certain party followed with 28 respondents. For the same question, 4 respondents believe that the election campaign effect on their choice and eventually financial compensation and the media have the same number of respondents who answered that it is a key factor when choosing a party. According to these results it can be concluded that the results of the political parties so far have the biggest impact on the choice of political party, after it follows, the political program / ​​plan, leader or member of a particular political party, the election campaigns, media and financial compensation. The following graph visually illustrates the statistical results of this research.

Figure 12: What influence the most on your choice of political party?

The thirteen research refers to is: Many Roma do not vote during the elections, which according to you is the main reason for it? (Offered options: Not being interested in the election, an individual vote does not make any difference, luck of political options, electoral manipulations and not being registered in the pooling list). According to the results of this question it can be seen that 51 respondents are not interested in the elections, follows the electoral manipulations with 44 respondents, as well as the reasons for not being registered in the pooling list with 11 respondents and the absence of political options with 8 respondents. The offered option an individual vote does not make any difference was not selected a reason. From these results it can be noted that the main reason for not voting during the elections is the fact that many Roma do not show interest for the elections, including the electoral manipulations, for not being registered in the electoral list as well as lack of political options. The following graph visually illustrates the statistical results of this research.

Figure 13: Many Roma do not vote during the elections, which according to you is the main reason for it?

The fourteen research question: If the elections were held today, for which of the following political party you would vote: (Offered options: SRM, PCER, PIR, OPE, DPR and DSR). According to the results it can be seen that 55% of the respondents would vote for SRM, 20% would go for PCER, 15% to DSR, 5% for PIR, and only 1% of the respondents would vote for OPE. Following these results, it can be concluded that the political party SRM would have the biggest results in the elections, after PCER, DSR, PIR, DPR and OPE. The following graph visually illustrates the statistical results of this research.

Figure 14: If the elections were held today, for which of the following political party you would vote for?

Conclusion

Based on the results of the survey, it can be seen that Roma are fairly politically active and partially take part in the Roma political parties which indicates that Roma are interested in the political processes that are going on in the Republic of Macedonia. Further, based on the research of Romalitico, it can be noted that the Roma population is somewhat satisfied with the level of democracy that reigns in the country. When it comes to having confidence in institutions, the analysis shows that the Roma community has partial trust in the Parliament, while institutions such as the President, police, medias and judiciary are an institutions least trusted by the Roma. The analysis indicates that the Roma freely use their right to vote which is a clear indication that they are active participants in the process of choosing their representative at the state level, as well as in the local level. When deciding whether their votes can make changes or not, the Roma community is divided, which illustrate that they find their voices not so valid and with less importance on making changes in the electoral processes. Based on the results of the survey, it can be also concluded that the voice of Roma can affect on the work of government when dealing with Roma issues. Most ranged is the work of SRM which is part of the coalition led by VMRO – DPMNE, second is the Roma opposition party PCER, while on the third place is the Roma political party DSR *. The Roma member of the Parliament Amdi Bajram, according to the respondents appears as the most trusted member, right behind him is Samka Ibraimoski, while on the third place is the leader of DSR Shaban Saliu.

According to the comments received from most of the people surveyed, it should be noted that these kinds of surveys are essential for the political culture and public opinion on Roma and Roma political parties with an aim to improve the situation of Roma in Macedonia. During the implementation of the survey, Romalitico experienced obstacles due to insufficient collaboration and response from the people, which explains the fact that this is the first online survey on public opinion for Roma related issues in Macedonia. Moreover, as an obstacle should also be noted the anonymity and distrust which led to obstacles in defining the population and sampling that would picture the public opinion of Roma middle class in Macedonia. Some of the questions are created without “I don’t know” and “none of the above” options due to the small sample size.

The survey is copyrighted, unauthorized publishing, text reproduction, distribution, and text copy is prohibited without prior consent by the author.